Bogdan Gabriel Sandu, Raluca Iulia Juncar, Abel Emanuel Moca, Paul Andrei Țenț, Mihai Juncar
{"title":"A Retrospective Analysis of the Characteristics and Clinical Outcomes of Dental Implants Placed in Romanian Patients","authors":"Bogdan Gabriel Sandu, Raluca Iulia Juncar, Abel Emanuel Moca, Paul Andrei Țenț, Mihai Juncar","doi":"10.1155/2024/9036212","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n <p>This study aimed to assess the favorable or unfavorable progress of dental implants in a patient sample from Oradea, Romania, considering different variables. A secondary objective was to describe the characteristics of the study sample, as well as different aspects regarding the implants used. This retrospective study analyzed medical records from 1 January 2018, to 1 January 2022, of patients at a dental clinic in Oradea, Romania, who received at least one dental implant. Variables examined included gender, age, systemic diseases, implant location, implant type, and timing of insertion. Clinical and radiological evaluations, using CBCT immediately postplacement and at six months, assessed implant stability and absence of complications. A standardized three-month loading time postinsertion was followed. Exclusion criteria included lack of follow-up, implants placed elsewhere, or incomplete medical records. Quantitative variables were assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test and nonparametric tests (Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis H tests). Fisher’s Exact test analyzed qualitative variables, with <i>Z</i>-tests and Dunn–Bonferroni tests providing detailed results. The study included 344 implants, with 153 (44.5%) placed in female patients and 191 (55.5%) in male patients. Most implants were bone level (61.6%, <i>n</i> = 212) and had a delayed placement (82.6%, <i>n</i> = 284). The majority were situated in the upper posterior dental arch (39.2%, <i>n</i> = 135). Notably, 96.5% (<i>n</i> = 332) of the implants exhibited a positive outcome, irrespective of age, gender, or associated systemic diseases. Immediate postextraction implants displayed a significantly higher association with a negative outcome (41.7% vs. 16.6%), whereas delayed placements were more frequently linked with a positive outcome (83.4% vs. 58.3%) (<i>p</i> = 0.040). Employing established techniques and protocols for dental implant insertion led to consistently positive outcomes, irrespective of the implant type, insertion timing, or location. Patient’s age, gender, and associated diseases did not significantly impact implant outcome, highlighting the robustness of these methods in achieving favorable results.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":13782,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/2024/9036212","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2024/9036212","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the favorable or unfavorable progress of dental implants in a patient sample from Oradea, Romania, considering different variables. A secondary objective was to describe the characteristics of the study sample, as well as different aspects regarding the implants used. This retrospective study analyzed medical records from 1 January 2018, to 1 January 2022, of patients at a dental clinic in Oradea, Romania, who received at least one dental implant. Variables examined included gender, age, systemic diseases, implant location, implant type, and timing of insertion. Clinical and radiological evaluations, using CBCT immediately postplacement and at six months, assessed implant stability and absence of complications. A standardized three-month loading time postinsertion was followed. Exclusion criteria included lack of follow-up, implants placed elsewhere, or incomplete medical records. Quantitative variables were assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test and nonparametric tests (Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis H tests). Fisher’s Exact test analyzed qualitative variables, with Z-tests and Dunn–Bonferroni tests providing detailed results. The study included 344 implants, with 153 (44.5%) placed in female patients and 191 (55.5%) in male patients. Most implants were bone level (61.6%, n = 212) and had a delayed placement (82.6%, n = 284). The majority were situated in the upper posterior dental arch (39.2%, n = 135). Notably, 96.5% (n = 332) of the implants exhibited a positive outcome, irrespective of age, gender, or associated systemic diseases. Immediate postextraction implants displayed a significantly higher association with a negative outcome (41.7% vs. 16.6%), whereas delayed placements were more frequently linked with a positive outcome (83.4% vs. 58.3%) (p = 0.040). Employing established techniques and protocols for dental implant insertion led to consistently positive outcomes, irrespective of the implant type, insertion timing, or location. Patient’s age, gender, and associated diseases did not significantly impact implant outcome, highlighting the robustness of these methods in achieving favorable results.
期刊介绍:
IJCP is a general medical journal. IJCP gives special priority to work that has international appeal.
IJCP publishes:
Editorials. IJCP Editorials are commissioned. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion]
Perspectives. Most IJCP Perspectives are commissioned. Example. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion]
Study design and interpretation. Example. [Always peer reviewed]
Original data from clinical investigations. In particular: Primary research papers from RCTs, observational studies, epidemiological studies; pre-specified sub-analyses; pooled analyses. [Always peer reviewed]
Meta-analyses. [Always peer reviewed]
Systematic reviews. From October 2009, special priority will be given to systematic reviews. [Always peer reviewed]
Non-systematic/narrative reviews. From October 2009, reviews that are not systematic will be considered only if they include a discrete Methods section that must explicitly describe the authors'' approach. Special priority will, however, be given to systematic reviews. [Always peer reviewed]
''How to…'' papers. Example. [Always peer reviewed]
Consensus statements. [Always peer reviewed] Short reports. [Always peer reviewed]
Letters. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion]
International scope
IJCP publishes work from investigators globally. Around 30% of IJCP articles list an author from the UK. Around 30% of IJCP articles list an author from the USA or Canada. Around 45% of IJCP articles list an author from a European country that is not the UK. Around 15% of articles published in IJCP list an author from a country in the Asia-Pacific region.